WEIM call letter change

[Martin Waters]

--- On Tue, 11/2/10, Scott Fybush <scott@fybush.com> wrote:
 > Well, no...at least not in the way we categorize them at
> the Archives, and at least in the case of WEEI, not in the
> way the FCC recognizes them.
> 
> We follow the FCC's facility ID numbers, and as far as the
> FCC is concerned, what happened in 1994 was this:
> 
    REGARD-less of the FCC -- after all, why start holding them in high regard now :)) -- I disagree here. Perhaps Ms. Halper can help on this.

   IMO, it's better -- more meaningful -- to follow the business/ownership/programming history rather than only the facilities. For example, I've always had the notion that WRKO is "generally" considered to be the continuation of the station John Shepard started in 1922 in Boston -- not a continuation of WLAW. Like WHDH, WLAW was purchased for its transmitting/antenna facilities and the station, as a business and broadcasting enterprise, was discontinued, while the purchasing stations, WNAC and WEEI, respectively, began broadcasting their existing programming over the newly purchased transmitting/antenna facilities.   

   If this other method is used, how about WBZ in Boston? Wouldn't it have to be categorized as a continuation of WBZA, the station Westinghouse established in Boston several years after WBZ in Springfield was built, rather than the continuation of WBZ? The facility that originally was WBZ in Springfield was discontinued in 1962.

    Or -- to avoid the issue of a synchronous station -- I'd point to WNBC. WFAN is not a continuation of WNBC. It just took over the facility. 

    Well ... my $0.02.

    And . . . I'm so proud of myself. I discussed the WEEI/WHDH case at some length without ever bringing up the flushing-down-the-toilet sign-off of WHDH in support of my position that WHDH disappeared at that moment and WEEI, founded in 1925 -- same year as WHDH, BTW -- carried on. I would never stoop to that sort of c!!p. :)))